Users cant really collaborate with devs on a puppy version, because they have nothing to offer

I think there are many cases where a user does have a lot to offer - because their feedback DOES shape the end product.

Let me try to explain that a bit better. Yes Users do give feedback which help shape the end product... but if viewed in an work effort way... the work a user does compared to the work a dev does is not equal in any way. A dev first has to spend the time and effort to make a product. Then the user can use it and say "X" doesnt work. Then the dev has to spend more time and effort to figure out why it doesnt work and then try to fix it. And often there is the whole problem of having to figure out how to reproduce the users error in the first place.
So the work balance isnt equal. Its a basic example of a P vs NP problem with respect to time and effort of work involved. One is easy to preform and check (the users effort) the other takes far more time and effort (the devs).

Yes users are important, but users have to realize (I consider myself a user with respect to some puppy projects), get the devs effort only at that devs convenience. In the past we have had people around here who didnt quite understand this and felt that the devs owed the users their time and effort. (to the point that they made the claim that the devs were nothing without users)
I want to do everything I can to make sure that the community does not go down the road of subjugating devs when they are trying to bring about collaboration.
On a total side note... I always find it interesting that these requests for collaboration always seem to come from users with very little ability to develop (or perhaps willingness to develop). I do strongly feel that if a lead dev in the community would be the one pushing collaboration like this; it'd be taken much better by the other devs and might have a chance to work. But as long as these requests come from a person(s) who will gain more than they can offer such a project... I dont see it ever happening... and it continues to come across more as 'do it my way' than anything else.
If you read up on threads last year... there were a bunch of threads on this very issue, and it ripped people away from this forum. So much so that they created another forum for the purposes of trying to destroy this one.
I DONT want this discussion to head in that direction in anyway. And I dont feel anyone in this thread currently wants to go that route... so lets all try to keep this polite and on topic. lol
Continuing on topic...

greengeek wrote:

Quote:

So what we'd have is a dev taking orders from dozens of people about how something should be done. And yes I used the word 'orders' on purpose... If the dev is just doing what other people want with no care for his own thoughts... then he/she isnt taking suggestions, they are taking orders.

Collaboration only works if it is voluntary for all concerned. I am assuming that gcmartin is suggesting that certain specific goals be set and that any contributor be able to include or withdraw themselves at any time. This is just what the PLDF offers, but I think he is suggesting that there are other methods that assist the process in a material way.

And this comes back to my point of where these suggestions of collaboration come from. They arent coming from a dev who is saying "Hey I want to start up a community project and I want users to give me input on what they want." Its always coming from a person who wants things done their way, or perhaps said in a more politically correct manor, people who want devs to put aside their own opinions and allow the opinions of others to take priority.
So yea, its about being voluntary. But its always seems that its users asking for devs to volunteer. Any time you've got a project in mind. You need workers. In the *nix universe, the workers are the devs. So the devs have to be willing to volunteer. Users cant force devs to volunteer, and you can be sure that the devs wont allow themselves to be bullied into doing work. Afterall, as you've said it's gotta be totally voluntary.

As I explained in my first post, in the past (the SFS-load-on-the-fly project) devs have come together to work on a single issue that affects everyone. And it worked out great. But that project was lead (if you will) by a dev. It wasnt driven by a committee of users wanting the devs attention on their project.

If the collaboration request comes from a dev on a project... then it'll probably work, cause they are vested into it and are willing to put in the effort. If the request comes from a user who does not have much to offer... then it'll probably not ever work.

I myself would like someone to develope a better fluid menu system for *nix. Something along the lines of the interface for the defunct ELSE phone. But since I dont have the skill to do it myself, and I dont have the $ to hire a dev to code it for me... it probably wont get done. I cant expect someone to do the work I want done if they dont care about it._________________

and it ripped people away from this forum. So much so that they created another forum for the purposes of trying to destroy this one.

Bullshit...that was a power play for something they wanted. They wanted to be BIG dicks and pick up some donations...nothing more.

This thread shows me the lack of passion from new users.
Devs seem to be better than ever so stop complaining and enjoy the new people that REALLY contribute to Puppy.

Eric

PS.if y'all don't like to hear my opinion just say so...I can take it.
A solid rebuke is welcome in my world...you know....debate!!

PSS..I forgot to mention the ego from Gear Head..sorry..that was a factor.

Perhaps I wasnt as clear... I agree with you that the person who went off and created the new forum was doing it for power, recognition, etc. But there were users who left here to go there, because they (I feel) naively bought into his whole "governing council" concept.

I just find it interesting that this topic keeps come up time after time by people who aren't contributing much other than constantly trying to tell others how things should be done._________________

The new developers and the ones that take up the "baton" are the ones to look at and ask questions from. The past is the past...as is how far back does an OS support..do we support an old 486SX or do we move with the technology to i686 (and beyond)...your call, but for me, forget it, and move to fast and go-faster....

I just find it interesting that this topic keeps come up time after time by people who aren't contributing much other than constantly trying to tell others how things should be done.

I think that the free software movement somehow triggers visions of collectivism, which is always more popular with those who have the least to offer and thus the most to gain. In reality, the free software movement is about a small minority of individuals who are motivated to write code for their own enjoyment, which sometimes involves sharing with other people.

It's probably a paradox, but creative individuals are able to contribute more to a community if they are free to operate outside a collective. I think Barry would illustrate this idea nicely, although I don't have any idea who he is personally.

I think that the free software movement somehow triggers visions of collectivism, which is always more popular with those who have the least to offer and thus the most to gain.

In my opinion collectivism is about making it possible for each individual to offer what they can - regardless of how many points it may rate on a percentage scale. Collaboration keeps everyone gainfully involved - and the more perspectives are brought to bear on a problem, the better the final product.

Collaboration keeps everyone gainfully involved - and the more perspectives are brought to bear on a problem, the better the final product.

It doesn't work that way, due to group dynamics. Get a group of confederates to state that 2+2 = 5, and subjects will generally agree. When has a group of economists, academics, politicians, etc., ever been correct on anything?

I think that the free software movement somehow triggers visions of collectivism, which is always more popular with those who have the least to offer and thus the most to gain.

This assumes everyone is only motivated by greed. We all benefit from sharing. Puppy exists not only because of its developers but also because the Linux and libre software ecosystem. Really the people who have most to gain have never heard of Linux. It is least popular by those have the most lose, the likes of Apple and Microsoft who wish to copyright and charge for anything they can get away with._________________helping Wiki for help | IF SendSpace link = "dead" THEN PM me ("up file to http://meownplanet.net/")

I think that the free software movement somehow triggers visions of collectivism, which is always more popular with those who have the least to offer and thus the most to gain.

This assumes everyone is only motivated by greed. We all benefit from sharing.

No, it doesn't. The free software movement as it exists proves that. It works, and sharing is a big part of it. M$ and Apple are commercial collaborations (i.e, collectives).

..but hey....if you think you can produce a better Puppy by adopting "a radical new approach" than that which has evolved, we all await the final product. I was attracted to Puppy linux specifically because individuals could create and post anything here, without having to go through some team of designated authorities.

I was attracted to Puppy linux specifically because individuals could create and post anything here, without having to go through some team of designated authorities.

Totally agree. I just think gcmartin was asking for input on methods to improve the power of collaboration (to achieve certain valued outcomes), not about how to increase the power of some individuals at the expense of others. But then, maybe it's not possible to strengthen or accelerate the outcome without detracting from creativity?

I think there is one point that has been completely absent from the talks here. I think everyone is for collaboration here. However the hard truth is that I would venture that 75% of the people here are unable to truly collaborate. This has nothing to do with personality or antyhing of the sort. It comes down to a simple issue of who has the technical ability to actually offer something.

Although, I generally agree with most of your writings here, I think you are taken over by the (reasonable) fear that demands are really behind the collaboration requests.
People here can collaborate in the development of an OS. They actually do.
Any OS development needs, architectural planing, features-planing, coding and alpha-, beta-testing. More organized OSs do that through meetings/conventions (planing), versioning hosts (coding), bug-trackers (testing), devel-mailing lists (all of the above) and forums (user feedback and help). Puppy has replaced all of these with the forum and to that extend (almost) everyone collaborates at some level.

I guess the problem is that this tread (and similar ones in the past) want to do the architectural-, features-planing. As I mentioned this is usually done in meetings/conventions of the developers. The reason that users are usually excluded from these is that you have to have some idea of the technical possibilities, limitations and ramifications of any given course, so you can be productive at the end of the day. (To that extend, as I said in the past, a "puppy devel meeting" could be useful).

Now regarding the users. Developers certainly do not need them for personal satisfaction/ego boost. We all know that we value way more the opinion of people we consider equal or better than us. Other developers in this case.
However, user appreciation is still useful specially for new developers, but also established ones when it is higher than their peers' (my puppy is more popular than yours… )

So what "users" can do at this point is to work through a collaboration platform to form a wish list. To be of some value this wish list should have some pointers and examples and to be realistic. ie something like:
"Puppy should have an "App store" /"Software center Application in addition to the PPM. Like quick/slickpet only better in this way"
but not :
" Puppy should forget about old (or new) hardware"
or
"puppies should be coming with in the slim, regular and fat versions. Having the extra 'weight' in another SFS and no need to remaster is more handy"
but not:
"The SFS sould be 50MB (or 500MB)"
I'm sure that if a consensus and reasonable list is form, developers will consider it. _________________Kids all over the world go around with an XO laptop. They deserve one puppy (or many) too

I like puppy's fragmented model. We are not dependant on a single host for files. We have individual miorrs of our own choosing. No google or gethub to pull the rug out from under our data. If we consolidate our storage to one area we are not hedged for the inevitable rug yank.
Collaboration. I'm with Q5sys. This takes place best within a single distro / derivative. The fragmented nature of puppy keeps Dev's from playing across all of them well. Every pup has a different build, with different stock apps, and different versions of this app.

We look at unbuntu and say "If we collaborate right we could beat them all. We would be the best distro." But we are not structured around a single Distro! Because of our different base repository build we are too different to unite in one collaboration.

From the Dev side puppy-linux looks like linux its self. Example. When a Dev is writing a program for Windows, MAC, and linux he sees this. Windows, Mac, Linux (Deb), Linux(RPM), Linux (Other (shoot me in the head)).
Its the same above in puppy-land alone. When I started writing LHPUP Record I had to think about how I would make this play nice in Puppy (A), Puppy(B), Puppy (ETC) and Linux(deb) and Linux(RPM). This is nuts from the DEV app side. So you have to decided right off what target OS's are in your scope.

mavrothal:

Quote:

This is not the way it works.
Linux and OSS in general, is a "grassroots" process. People voluntarily join a project that a) looks interesting and b) is inviting.
As easily, they walk away to go home (even ttuuxxx disappeared Surprised ) or do their own take on the same thing (as evident by the number of linux distributions).
You simply can not "force" linux developers together.

So true...... People in puppy-linux land do what interests them. We are not getting paid. I'm not going to do something that I hate off the start just because a user needs it and spend my free time doing it. Sure if I start something and it goes south I'll keep at it for a bit trying to dig a way out but my breaking point is about 3/4 faster than if I was making a pay check. I compile pets now and again because I have some free time even if i don't use it but if I get into a depend hell and have to build more than 10 packages I walk away.

Many Devs and competent users that can compile think its the users fault. They need to learn to compile. The user needs to learn how to code in basic bash. I was this way too until about 6 years ago. I read an article about how allot of people cant code. Their brain does not get past the issue of not having a psychical connection to an outcome. For all you coders here imagine a person that cant go beyond a if than loop. Thats as far as their brain will ever go in coding. As soon as they have Arrays where stuff is stored, and other code being called by code they break down. So asking them to compile a program that depends on a depend or if the depend is ambiguous and they have to go looking in a file for some *.h file to see if its called from the right dir path they freek out.

Short answer is its not the users fault, they are not lazy. They just don't think like us.
So users really can't help much for collaboration within puppy besides relaying their wants and needs. They can't look at our code and go hmm maybe this would work better. Needs and wants do help in direction of a finished project. The project must first exist. Creating the project in the Alpha and early beta stage naturally excludes the end user in a Linux voluntary work hour scenario.

Yes Saluki and Carolina was an outgrowth of that. (Also, I think its important to say that the thread does NOT intend to change PLDF or its current contributions. This thread is asking if we can view a method which also produces beneficial results but from a little different approach. This could have an impact on everything from objective to acceptance.)

If one is to understand that Carolina was an outgrowth of Saluki's "pathing" which morphed into a type of collaboration by the Carolina authors (I'm sure that they did NOT think of the words collaboration, collectives, teaming, or any other words as such) but, it demonstrates how, even accidentally, without calling it collaboration, collaboration can occur.

When any one of us steps back and looks at what happened, we can see a pattern for what might be a way to structure it using the skeleton.

I believe we can take this approach to a structure way. Using the understanding of structures like this, we can craft something that started as an accidental gathering into something that can be a useful approach in how we contribute commonly.

There seems to be a high frequency of people feeling that in a group there is to be people telling others what to do.

I don't see this expectation (unless of course you are looking at past attempts of working together). I would think that those collaborating with each other would have respect and work together understanding that what contribution they can make would be beneficial to all for the goal.

Everyone of us is not equal. I know and you know that. But, as others have shared, there are many steps along the way where a person whose skillset may not match your own makes a worthy contribution.

So, again, all here are adjusting their eyepieces as we wonder if we can, in fact, agree, define, structure the implementation, implement, test, document, and present something useful with a loosely coupled team of dog-lovers. Can something be done in a way that we can demonstrate a methodical approach that can set a new direction in our methods of useful production from a diverse mix of individuals working for something that is common good.

This may seem idealistic, and it is, but, if it is made practical, it is not some far-fetched dream of working together, it becomes real.

here to help
P.S. The notion that someone passed earlier about my working on teamed projects....dispell it. I have, more that you'll know. But, whether I have or haven't does NOT mean that anyone of us cannot offer up non-traditional views (Galileo is an example)._________________Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engineor use DogPileLast edited by gcmartin on Tue 11 Dec 2012, 16:07; edited 2 times in total

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum